Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Mains level: Regulation of online content;
Why in the News?
Social media platform X told the Delhi High Court that it cannot be forced to join the government’s SAHYOG portal, raising concerns that the portal might be misused to restrict online content.
What is the SAHYOG portal?
|
How does the government justify the creation of SAHYOG portal?
- Enhancing Law Enforcement Efficiency: The government argues that SAHYOG enables faster coordination between law enforcement agencies, social media platforms, and telecom providers to remove unlawful content swiftly. Example: During communal riots, law enforcement can quickly flag and remove misinformation that could incite violence.
- Legal Obligation Under IT Act: The government justifies SAHYOG under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, which mandates that intermediaries remove content upon receiving government notification to retain their safe harbour protection. Example: If a government agency reports a post promoting terrorism, the platform must take it down to comply with the law.
- Court-Mandated Need for Real-Time Action: The government cites the Delhi High Court’s observation in Shabana vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors., which highlighted the necessity of a real-time content removal mechanism to handle urgent cases. Example: In cases of child exploitation content, immediate action through SAHYOG ensures rapid takedown and prevents further harm.
Why has X (formerly Twitter) challenged the SAHYOG portal in the Delhi High Court?
- Existence of an Independent Mechanism: X asserts that it has its own system to process valid legal requests for content removal and cannot be compelled to join the SAHYOG portal.
- Legal Concerns Over Parallel Mechanisms: The company argues that the SAHYOG portal creates a parallel content removal mechanism without the stringent legal safeguards outlined in Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Potential for Unchecked Censorship: X is concerned that the portal could lead to unrestrained censorship by allowing multiple government officials to issue content removal orders without proper oversight.
How does Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act differ from Section 69A in terms of content takedown provisions?
| Aspect | Section 79(3)(b) | Section 69A |
| Nature of Obligation |
|
|
| Who Issues Takedown Orders? |
|
|
| Legal Safeguards & Due Process |
|
|
| Scope of Application |
|
|
| Example Scenarios |
|
|
Who are the key stakeholders involved in the SAHYOG portal’s implementation and legal challenge?
- Government Authorities: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) developed the SAHYOG portal to enhance coordination between law enforcement agencies and social media platforms for combating cybercrime. The portal aims to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries for the removal or disabling of unlawful online content.
- Social Media Platforms (Intermediaries): Companies like X Corp (formerly Twitter) are directly impacted by the portal’s operations. X Corp has legally challenged the government’s use of the SAHYOG portal, arguing that it functions as a censorship tool by bypassing established legal safeguards and infringing upon constitutional rights such as freedom of speech.
- Judiciary: The Delhi High Court plays a pivotal role in adjudicating disputes related to the SAHYOG portal. It has urged various states, union territories, and intermediaries to join the portal to effectively combat cybercrime, while also addressing grievances from law enforcement agencies regarding data access from intermediaries.
Where does the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India come into play in the debate over SAHYOG?
- Precedent on Online Free Speech & Due Process: The Shreya Singhal ruling struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and overbroad, while upholding Section 69A with due process requirements, including hearings for content creators. Example: A journalist’s tweet flagged via SAHYOG may be removed without an opportunity to challenge it, violating Shreya Singhal principles.
- Judicial Safeguards & Preventing Arbitrary Censorship: Shreya Singhal upheld Section 69A but mandated transparent procedures, review committees, and justifications for content blocking. Example: If SAHYOG bulk blocks dissenting voices without an independent review, it could breach Shreya Singhal safeguards.
Way forward:
- Ensure Judicial Oversight & Accountability – Implement an independent review mechanism to prevent arbitrary censorship and align with the Shreya Singhal ruling.
- Enhance Transparency & Due Process – Mandate clear guidelines, periodic transparency reports, and an appeal system for content takedown decisions.
Mains PYQ:
Question: Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution. [UPSC 2013]
Linkage: This question linked with regulation of online content and the potential restrictions on freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. This is relevant because content takedown provisions are also a form of regulating online speech and need to be consistent with constitutional rights.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
